10
CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 467–476 (1996) ARTICLE NO. 0031 BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class JOE D. NICHOLS Neff Hall, School of Education, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, Ft. Wayne, Indiana In this study, the effects of a form of cooperative group instruction (Student Teams Achievement Divisions) on student motivation and achievement in a high school geome- try class were examined. Eighty students were randomly assigned to either a control group receiving traditional instruction or one of two treatment groups receiving coopera- tive learning instruction. Geometry achievement was assessed using scores from the IOWA Test of Basic Skills and teacher-made exams. An 83-item questionnaire was used as a pretest, posttest, and post-posttest assessment of efficacy, intrinsic valuing, goal orientation, and cognitive processing. Students in the cooperative treatment groups exhibited significantly greater gains than the control group in geometry achievement, efficacy, intrinsic valuing of geometry, learning goal orientation, and reported uses of deep processing strategies. The implications for cooperative group structures and motivation theory are discussed. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc. When used properly, cooperative group learning has been shown to be effective in increasing academic achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Nichols & Miller, 1994; Slavin, 1990). The purpose of the present study was to examine the impact of one type of cooperative group environment on several motivational variables that may underlie achievement gains, while also providing replication with design improvements to previous research reported by Nichols and Miller (1994). Slavin (1984) has argued that a possible factor responsible for the success of cooperative group instruction is the positive motivational impact of peer support for learning. By reducing the competitive nature of the typical class- This study was conducted as partial fulfillment for the Ph.D. degree in Educational Psychology at the University of Oklahoma under the direction of Raymond B. Miller and Paul F. Kleine. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1995 conference of the American Educa- tional Research Association, San Francisco, CA. I thank Raymond B. Miller, University of Oklahoma, and Lowell Madden, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, for their comments on earlier drafts of this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joe D. Nichols, School of Education, Neff Hall, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, Ft. Wayne, IN 46805. E-mail: Internet to [email protected]. 467 0361-476X/96 $18.00 Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc. All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

  • Upload
    joe-d

  • View
    216

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

CONTEMPORARY EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 21, 467–476 (1996)ARTICLE NO. 0031

BRIEF RESEARCH REPORT

The Effects of Cooperative Learning on StudentAchievement and Motivation in a

High School Geometry Class

JOE D. NICHOLS

Neff Hall, School of Education, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, Ft. Wayne, Indiana

In this study, the effects of a form of cooperative group instruction (Student TeamsAchievement Divisions) on student motivation and achievement in a high school geome-try class were examined. Eighty students were randomly assigned to either a controlgroup receiving traditional instruction or one of two treatment groups receiving coopera-tive learning instruction. Geometry achievement was assessed using scores from theIOWA Test of Basic Skills and teacher-made exams. An 83-item questionnaire wasused as a pretest, posttest, and post-posttest assessment of efficacy, intrinsic valuing,goal orientation, and cognitive processing. Students in the cooperative treatment groupsexhibited significantly greater gains than the control group in geometry achievement,efficacy, intrinsic valuing of geometry, learning goal orientation, and reported usesof deep processing strategies. The implications for cooperative group structures andmotivation theory are discussed. q 1996 Academic Press, Inc.

When used properly, cooperative group learning has been shown to beeffective in increasing academic achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1989;Nichols & Miller, 1994; Slavin, 1990). The purpose of the present study wasto examine the impact of one type of cooperative group environment onseveral motivational variables that may underlie achievement gains, whilealso providing replication with design improvements to previous researchreported by Nichols and Miller (1994).

Slavin (1984) has argued that a possible factor responsible for the successof cooperative group instruction is the positive motivational impact of peersupport for learning. By reducing the competitive nature of the typical class-

This study was conducted as partial fulfillment for the Ph.D. degree in Educational Psychologyat the University of Oklahoma under the direction of Raymond B. Miller and Paul F. Kleine.An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1995 conference of the American Educa-tional Research Association, San Francisco, CA. I thank Raymond B. Miller, University ofOklahoma, and Lowell Madden, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, for their comments onearlier drafts of this article. Address correspondence and reprint requests to Joe D. Nichols,School of Education, Neff Hall, Indiana/Purdue University at Ft. Wayne, Ft. Wayne, IN 46805.E-mail: Internet to [email protected].

467

0361-476X/96 $18.00Copyright q 1996 by Academic Press, Inc.All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 2: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

468 NICHOLS

room, cooperative groups may direct students toward improving their knowl-edge in their pursuit of the team goal of demonstrating achievement. If thisis the case, cooperative learning may also be altering the goal orientations ofstudents. Dweck and Leggett (1988) suggested that individuals with learninggoals seek reasonable challenges and persist under adversity, whereas thosewith performance goals avoid challenging tasks and display low persistencewhen difficulties arise. Students with strong learning goal orientations areinterested in increasing their competency on a task, and their primary goal isto obtain knowledge and improve their skills. Bandura (1986) argued that anindividual’s efficacy beliefs influence motivation in several ways. Individualswill tend to avoid activities they believe are beyond their capabilities. Theamount of effort individuals invest in an activity and the level of persistenceat difficult tasks are linked to their perceptions of their capability. The greatertheir self-efficacy, the greater their effort and persistence. Additionally, Band-ura (1986) argued that an individual’s self-efficacy for a task is positivelyrelated to experiencing the intrinsic rewards of the activity.

Several studies have indicated a positive relationship between students’learning goal orientations and their intrinsic valuing of the subject matterthey are studying (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle,1988; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993; Nichols & Miller, 1994).Positive relationships have also been observed between students’ self-efficacyand their perceptions of the intrinsic value of the task (Meece et al., 1988;Miller et al., 1993; Nichols & Miller, 1994; Pintrich & Degroot, 1990; Po-kay & Blumenfeld, 1990). Students with learning goals are also more likelyto report engaging in self-regulatory activities such as the use of monitoring,planning, and cognitive strategies (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece et al., 1988).Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) showed that self-efficacy and intrinsic valuingwere positively related to cognitive engagement and performance. Particu-larly, intrinsic valuing of the learning task was strongly related to self-regula-tion and cognitive strategy use.

When used properly, cooperative learning has been shown to be effectivein increasing student achievement and preliminary results of the impacton student motivation are also promising. Students learning in cooperativegroups experience increased achievement and positive attitudes toward thelearning task (Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1990) andalso express an increased enjoyment of mathematics and an increase inself-efficacy toward mathematics (Slavin & Karweit, 1985; Slavin,Leavey, & Madden, 1986; Slavin, Madden, & Leavey, 1984; Oishi, 1983).Nichols and Miller (1994) also observed increases in student achievementas well as students’ self-efficacy, learning goal orientation, and intrinsicvaluing of the learning task after the implementation of a form of coopera-tive group instruction.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 3: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

469COOPERATIVE LEARNING

The present study improves upon several design constraints present in anearlier study (Nichols & Miller, 1994) that was the result of factors oftenassociated with the field setting. In the initial study, the school district alloweda one-semester trial of the cooperative learning treatment in one class. Thecurrent study compared three classes, with one serving as a control and tworeceiving cooperative group instruction at two different times during theschool year. This allowed an examination of a ‘‘return to baseline’’ for thetreatment groups when compared to the control and ensured that changesin performance would strengthen the arguments of causal influences of thetreatment.

Participants in the present study were enrolled in high school geometryrather than Algebra II, which was the case in the earlier study. The use ofAlgebra II classes may have been a confounding factor when measuringachievement in the earlier study because of its similarity in content area toa prerequisite course in Algebra I. Geometry is a uniquely different domainand may encourage greater interaction among cooperative group membersdue to the nature of the analysis of geometrical figures and logic proofs. Itwas also anticipated that students would report using deeper processing strate-gies as opposed to shallow processing strategies as a result of the analysisthat is required in the geometry content area. In addition, by using the StudentTeams Achievement Divisions (STAD) (Slavin, 1990) program, the effectsof individual pacing and retesting could not be considered a causal factor inobserved achievement or motivation gains that were recognized in the previ-ous study.

In the present study the effects of a form of cooperative group instruction(STAD) on motivation and achievement in a high school geometry class wereexamined. When compared to students receiving traditional instruction, dostudents in a cooperative learning condition (a) display higher levels of geome-try achievement, (b) report being more learning goal oriented, (c) have greaterpositive self-efficacy beliefs regarding their abilities in geometry, (d) displaygreater intrinsic valuing of geometry, and (e) report the use of deeper cognitiveprocessing strategies.

METHOD

Participants

Eighty students (68 tenth grade, 10 eleventh grade, and 2 twelfth grade) were enrolled in threesections of the first semester of geometry at a suburban high school in the Midwest. All studentshad completed a traditional Algebra I class prior to enrollment in geometry. Students wereenrolled by computer in Treatment Group I, Treatment Group II, or the Control Group from apool of approximately 400 students. At the time of enrollment, counselors and students had noknowledge that some classes would be lecture format classes and others would be cooperativegroup format.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 4: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

470 NICHOLS

The school population was approximately 90% Caucasian with students of various ethnicbackgrounds accounting for the remainder of the student body. Enrollment was open and un-restricted as long as students had successfully completed Algebra I. Each geometry class metdaily (Monday through Friday) for an 18-week period for a 55-min class session.

Instruments

Five dependent variables were measured: geometry achievement, goal orientation, self-efficacy,intrinsic motivation toward geometry, and cognitive processing.

An 83-item questionnaire has been developed to assess various aspects of student motivation.Variations of this questionnaire have been used by Miller and his colleagues (Miller, Greene,Nichols, & Montalvo, 1994; Miller et al., 1993; Montalvo, Miller, Greene, & Nichols, 1994;Nichols & Miller, 1994) on related research projects.

The items were Likert-type questions intended to measure student learning and performancegoal orientation (12 items), perceived intrinsic and extrinsic valuing of a task (four each subscale),cognitive strategy use (nine deep strategy and nine shallow strategy items), and self-efficacy(eight items). The items were randomly ordered using a 5-point scale with ‘‘strongly agree’’and ‘‘strongly disagree’’ at the extremes. The internal reliability coefficients from the pre-, post-,and post-posttest questionnaire subscales ranged from r Å .41 to r Å .93. The questionnaire wasdistributed during the first week of school in August, at the end of the first 9-week gradingperiod and again at the end of the second 9-week grading period. Students completed thequestionnaire at each phase of the project in approximately 20 min.

Mathematical achievement was measured to determine initial differences in achievement usingnational percentile scores from the IOWA Achievement Test of Basic Skills from the previousschool year. Reliability coefficients for the IOWA from the 1992 national norms were .90,.89, and .88 for sophomores, juniors, and seniors, respectively. In addition, two teacher-madecomprehensive tests reflecting the state mandated curriculum as well as the local school districtcurriculum standards were also used to measure achievement. These tests or variations of themhave been used in previous years. The first was a 40-question multiple choice test with itemsderived specifically from the objectives students worked on in both the treatment and controlgroups. This test was administered at the end of the first 9-week grading period and the scorecounted as 20% of the students’ term grade. The second teacher-made test was similar in natureand results were used to compute the semester grade. It was administered following the second9-week grading period. At each testing period, students had 1 h to complete the exam. Reliabilitiesfor each of the two teacher-made 9-week exams were calculated using the Kuder–Richardson20 and were r Å .85 and r Å .88.

Treatment

The goal for both styles of instruction (traditional lecture and STAD) was to have studentsgain an equal balance of conceptual and computational understanding of plane geometry. Astandard curriculum was followed with the cooperative group students covering the same courseobjectives at the same pace as the lecture group.

Cooperative Learning Treatment

The cooperative learning treatment were based on the previous work reported by Slavin (1990)on Student Teams Achievement Divisions (STAD). Students receiving STAD instruction wereplaced by the instructor in heterogeneous groups consisting of four to five students. Previousachievement in Algebra I classes was used to place students in these groups. Ideally, each groupconsisted of a prior low-achieving student (grade of D), a low–medium achievement student(grade of C), a high–medium achievement student (grade of B), and a high achievement student

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 5: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

471COOPERATIVE LEARNING

(grade of A). At the end of each 2-week period, students were placed into new heterogeneousgroups. Cooperative group students received brief whole class instruction at the beginning ofeach class (approximately 10 min) after which students moved to their respective groups andworked on assignments receiving tutoring from their fellow group members.

Students in cooperative groups received individual grades on their assignments. However, theindividual performances of team members were combined at the end of each week for a teamscore. The team with the best score for the previous week (determined by team members’individual improvement) was acknowledged at the beginning of each week with verbal recogni-tion from the teacher and a team success chart located in the classroom.

Traditional Lecture/Control Group

Participants in the traditional lecture group received more detailed instruction from the teacheron the assignment for the day (approximately 30 min). These students covered the same materialand in-class assignments were equivalent to those given in the cooperative group treatment.Students in the traditional class worked independently on assignments rather than in teams andalso received individual grades.

Procedure

Permission to incorporate this project into the high school in the fall was obtained from thebuilding principal. In addition, letters explaining the project and method of instruction were senthome with students the first week of school so that a parental signature for participation couldbe filed for later reference. Each geometry class met daily for an 18-week period with each classsession totaling 55 min. The students completed the motivation survey on the same day at theend of August during the first week of school, at the end of the first 9 weeks and again at theend of the second 9-week period. At the end of each nine week period, students also completedthe teacher-made exam reflecting objectives for that instructional period. During the first weekof school, percentile scores from the math portion of the IOWA achievement test were alsoobtained from student records for use in establishing initial differences in achievement betweenthe three groups.

Students or parents who did not wish their son or daughter to participate had the option totransfer into another geometry class the first week of school or had the option of remaining in classand not participating in the cooperative group format, choosing instead to work independently. Allstudents in this project chose to participate. Treatment group 1 received STAD instruction forthe first nine weeks of school and, beginning the second nine week period, received traditionallecture format instruction. Treatment group 2 received traditional lecture format instruction forthe first nine weeks of the course and received STAD instruction the second nine weeks of theproject. The Control group received traditional lecture instruction throughout the 18 weeks ofthe project. The same instructor was used for all three sections of geometry to minimize anyteacher variability.

RESULTS

The internal reliability of the instrument and the consistency of the signifi-cant correlations throughout the project among several of the motivationsubscales provide support for the construct validity of the instrument. Mostnoteworthy were the significant correlations throughout the project betweenlearning goals and intrinsic valuing, learning goals and self-efficacy, intrinsicvaluing and self-efficacy, and deep processing and self-efficacy.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 6: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

472 NICHOLS

TABLE 1MOTIVATION SUBSCALE AND ACHIEVEMENT MEANS AND STANDARD

DEVIATIONS OF TREATMENT AND CONTROL GROUPS

Pretest Posttest Post-Posttest

Variables M SD M SD M SD

AchievementTreatment 1 66.96 16.40 89.67 11.20 84.22 10.58Treatment 2 62.78 17.94 74.15 14.36 82.19 10.66Control 63.81 20.09 79.26 18.03 79.03 16.48

Learning goalTreatment 1 3.09 .73 4.25 .58 3.56 .62Treatment 2 3.17 .69 3.23 .73 3.89 .68Control 3.10 .65 3.17 .63 3.25 .65

Perform goalTreatment 1 3.00 .76 1.94 .58 2.56 .67Treatment 2 2.86 .77 2.90 .77 2.99 .75Control 3.05 .84 3.06 .87 3.09 .72

IntrinsicTreatment 1 2.56 0.98 4.12 0.68 3.64 .78Treatment 2 2.65 1.16 2.69 1.12 3.68 .97Control 3.09 1.07 3.10 1.06 3.13 .86

ExtrinsicTreatment 1 3.01 .35 3.08 .72 3.07 .49Treatment 2 3.15 .52 3.85 .79 3.21 .84Control 3.14 .52 3.67 .75 3.51 .63

EfficacyTreatment 1 3.10 .61 4.38 .41 3.82 .53Treatment 2 3.27 .72 3.38 .73 3.85 .67Control 3.44 .50 3.55 .71 3.48 .59

ShallowTreatment 1 3.11 .36 3.23 .63 3.46 .60Treatment 2 3.29 .48 3.37 .47 3.89 .62Control 3.12 .52 3.23 .48 3.25 .36

DeepTreatment 1 3.05 .46 4.36 .31 3.24 .36Treatment 2 3.27 .48 3.19 .55 3.90 .60Control 3.29 .41 3.27 .40 3.24 .36

Note. Pretest achievement scores are national percentile ranks on the IOWA Test of BasicSkills, while posttest and post-posttest achievement scores reflect percentage scores on the 9weeks teacher-made exams, maximum score Å 100.

Data Analysis

The means and standard deviations for the pretest, posttest, and post-post-test motivation and achievement scores are reported in Table 1. Using the

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 7: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

473COOPERATIVE LEARNING

IOWA pretest achievement measure as a covariate, Analysis of Covariance(ANCOVA) revealed a significant difference among the three groups on theachievement variable at the second F(2,76)Å 28.12, põ .05 and third F(2,76)Å 15.58, p õ Å .05 phases of the project. Planned comparisons revealed thatachievement scores of the treatment 1 group were significantly greater thanthose of the control t(27) Å 2.56, p õ .01, and treatment group 2 t(27) Å2.67, p õ .01 groups at the end of the first nine weeks of the project. At theend of the second phase of the project, treatment group 2 showed a significantincrease over the control group on achievement t(27) Å .83, p õ .05, andtreatment 1 continued to exhibit a significant edge over the control groupeven after the cooperative groups had ended for them after the first nine weekperiod t(27) Å 1.38, p õ .05.

A repeated-measures Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) wasused to determine if significant differences existed among groups on themotivation variables at each phase of the project. Results for the learninggoal variable showed a significant group main effect F(2,76) Å 3.11, p õ.05, a significant effect for time F(2,76) Å 37.66, p õ .01 and a significantgroup by time interaction F(4,154) Å 37.76, p õ .01. Performance goals alsoshowed a significant main effect for group F(2,76) Å 4.83, p õ .01, for timeF(2,154) Å 21.51, p õ .01, and showed a group by time interaction F(4,154)Å 22.95, p õ .01.

Results for self-efficacy revealed significant group main effects F(2,76) Å2.23, p õ .05, significant effects for time F(2,154) Å 56.05, p õ .01, and asignificant group by time interaction F(4,154) Å 38.57, p õ .01. Intrinsicvaluing of the learning task showed a significant group main effect F(2,76)Å 1.35, p õ .05, a significant effect for time F(2,154) Å 70.80, p õ .01 anda significant group by time interaction F(4,154) Å 47.09, p õ .01. Extrinsicvaluing of the learning task also exhibited a significant group main effectF(2,76) Å 7.27, p õ .01, a significant effect for time F(2,154) Å 10.77, p õ.01, and a significant group by time interaction F(4,154) Å 3.55, p õ .01.

Students involved with the cooperative learning treatment also exhibitedsignificant gains in their reported use of shallow and deep processing strate-gies. The analysis of shallow processing revealed a significant group effectF(2,76) Å 3.38, p õ .05, a significant effect for time F(2,154) Å 23.03, p õ.01, and a significant group by time interaction F(4,154) Å 5.27, p õ .05.The results for the reported use of deep processing revealed a significantgroup effect F(2,76) Å 9.82, p õ .05, a significant effect for time F(2,154)Å 58.42, p õ .01, and a significant group by time interaction F(4,154),p õ .01.

Many of the results from the study are peripheral to the central purpose ofthe project and will not be reported at this time. Readers interested in thesefindings are encouraged to contact the author.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 8: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

474 NICHOLS

DISCUSSION

The results of this investigation into the impact of cooperative learning onstudents in a high school geometry class provide optimistic support for thisinstructional technique. Achievement gains were observed in the two treat-ment groups when cooperative learning was implemented which is consistentwith similar achievement gains previously reported (Nichols & Miller, 1994;Oshi, 1983; Slavin, 1983; Slavin & Karweit, 1985). When cooperative learn-ing techniques are used properly, achievement benefits appear to be one ofthe results that can be anticipated.

The results also offer support for previous findings in that cooperativelearning instruction may also serve to enhance student motivation in a varietyof ways (Ames, 1984; Nichols & Miller, 1994). Students receiving cooperativelearning experienced increases in their intrinsic valuing of the learning task,self-efficacy, and learning goal orientations and their reported use of deepprocessing strategies.

In a previous study, Nichols and Miller (1994) observed decreases inachievement and motivation gains when cooperative learning was replacedwith a traditional form of instruction. One goal of this study was to replicatethese findings while improving upon the design of the earlier project. In theearlier study, one treatment group was used to explore the effects of coopera-tive group instruction. By using two treatment groups and implementingcooperative learning at two different times of the year, the findings of thisproject provide additional support for this type of instructive technique inde-pendent of the time of implementation during the school year. It has beensuggested that student perceptions of the learning environment remain rela-tively fixed or stable after the first eight weeks of school, and after this timeit becomes difficult to change their impressions (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, &Ryan, 1981). The findings of this study suggest that the cooperative groupinstruction may be one avenue that could be used to effectively promote apositive change in student perceptions and motivation later in the school year.

A second design improvement was the use of Slavin’s Student TeamsAchievement Divisions (STAD) (Slavin, 1990) cooperative group design asopposed to Team Assisted Individualization (TAI) (1984) in the earlier study.The previous findings were contingent upon the use of TAI which incorporatesindividualized instruction, and in the earlier study, a retesting componentwhen students did not meet predetermined objectives. The findings of thecurrent study offer support for this type of instruction in that increases instudent motivation and achievement may also generalize to other cooperativegroup structures (in this case STAD) that do not include individualized in-struction or a retesting component.

In summary, these results indicate that cooperative group learning can

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 9: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

475COOPERATIVE LEARNING

result in increased achievement and motivation to learn. The adoption oflearning goals, intrinsic valuing of the learning task, increased self-efficacy,and increased use of deep processing strategies are all positive indications ofthe impact cooperative learning can have on student motivation. Althoughseveral perspectives may be considered in interpreting these results, the initialfindings are encouraging. Additional research should be conducted in thefuture that investigates the possible long-term effects of cooperative groupinstruction, and the subsequent decline of achievement and student motivationthat was observed in the current and previous study after the removal ofcooperative group instruction. The ethical considerations involving the imple-mentation and removal of successful and nonsuccessful instructional programsis a critical issue that should be explored in future research.

REFERENCESAMES, C. (1984). Achievement attributions and self-instructions under competitive and individu-

alistic goal structures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 478–487.AMES, C., & ARCHER, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students’ learning strategies

and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 260–267.BANDURA, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice–Hall.DECI, E., SCHWARTZ, A., SHEINMAN, L., & RYAN, R. (1981). An instrument to assess adults’

orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motiva-tion and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(5), 642–650.

DWECK, D., & LEGGETT, E. (1988). A Social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95(2), 56–273.

JOHNSON, D., & JOHNSON, R. (1989). Cooperation and competition: theory and research. Edina,MN: Interaction Book Company.

MEECE, J., BLUMENFELD, P., & HOYLE, R. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitiveengagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

MILLER, R. B., BEHRENS, J. T., GREENE, B. A., & NEWMAN, D. (1993). Goals and perceivedability: Impact on student valuing, self regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educa-tional Psychology, 18, 2–14.

MILLER, R. B., GREENE, B. A., NICHOLS, J. D., & MONTALVO, G. P. (1994). Multiple goals andcognitive engagement. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Associationannual meeting, New Orleans, LA.

MONTALVO, G. P., MILLER, R. B., GREENE, B. A., & NICHOLS, J. D. (1994). The need formeasuring two perceptions of ability in motivation research. Paper presented at the AmericanEducational Research Association annual meeting, New Orleans, LA.

NICHOLS, J., & MILLER, R. (1994). Cooperative Learning and Student Motivation. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 19(2), 167–178.

OISHI, S. (1983). Effects of team assisted individualization in mathematics on the cross-race andcross-sex interactions of elementary school children. Doctoral dissertation, College Park:University of Maryland.

PINTRICH, P., & DEGROOT, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning componentsof classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33–40.

POKAY, P., & BLUMENFELD, P. (1990). Predicting achievement early and late in the semester:The role of motivation and use of learning strategies. Journal of Education Psychology,82(1), 41–50.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP

Page 10: The Effects of Cooperative Learning on Student Achievement and Motivation in a High School Geometry Class

476 NICHOLS

SHARAN, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achieve-ment, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50, 241–271.

SLAVIN, R. (1984). Team-assisted individualization: Cooperative learning and individualizationinstruction in the mainstreamed classroom. Remedial and Special Education, 5(6), 33–42.

SLAVIN, R. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research and practice. Hillsdale, NJ: Prentice–Hall.

SLAVIN, R. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement? PsychologicalBulletin, 94, 429–445.

SLAVIN, R., & KARWEIT, N. (1985). Cognitive and affective outcomes of an intensive studentteam learning experience. Journal of Experimental Education, 50, 29–35.

SLAVIN, R., LEAVEY, M., & MADDEN, N. (1986). Team-accelerated instruction-mathematics.Watertown, MA. Mastery Education Corporation.

SLAVIN, R., MADDEN, N., LEAVEY, M. (1984). Effects of cooperative learning and individualizedinstruction on the social acceptance, achievement, and behavior of mainstreamed students.Exceptional Children, 50, 434–443.

ab02$$0909 09-23-96 01:35:29 cepas AP: CEP